The Use of Box Lysimeters with Freshly Contaminated Soils To Study the Phytoremediation of Recalcitrant Organic Contaminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for phytoremediation of soil contaminated by trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 2,2',5,5'-tetrabromobiphenyl (PBB was used as a surrogate for PCBs) was examined in a 2-year study using box lysimeters under field conditions. The treatments were a warm season grass, Johnson grass, and a cool season grass, Canadian wildrye, and a rotation of Johnson grass and wildrye plus a fallow condition. The experiment was conducted using 12 large (1.50 m x 1.50 m x 0.75 m), in-ground, box lysimeters filled with a Weswood silt-loam soil freshly spiked with the TNT and PBB compounds to a concentration of 10 mg kg(-1) for each chemical. The lysimeters were sheltered to permit controlled applications of water. A total of five sampling rounds were conducted where soil, herbage, and leachate samples were collected for laboratory analysis. TNT and PBB concentrations were determined using the U.S. EPA approved immunoassay test procedures. In the soil, TNT concentrations dropped below the detection limit of 0.25 mg kg(-1) by day 92 and PBB concentrations dropped below the detection limit of 0.50 mg kg(-1) by day 184. There were no significant differences in chemical concentrations among any of the vegetated or fallow treatments at a significance level of alpha < 0.05. However, PBB soil concentrations rebounded above the 0.50 mg kg(-1) level by day 720 for all treatments. No detectable concentrations of TNT or PBB were found in any of the herbage samples or in the leachate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".